Why should anyone be allowed to keep a horse?

Posted: Monday, September 13, 1999

Horses, snakes and dogs recently revealed in a disquieting way certain attitudes based on illogic and ignorance that are prevalent in society. Snakes were the topic of discussion by a group of elected officials. I introduce the dogs and horses as evidence of the underlying illogic and ignorance.

Whit

Gibbons

Before I go on, let me admit that I am capable of thinking illogically and am ignorant on many topics. I neither condemn nor resent people just because they have these traits. I am especially tolerant of such undesirable attitudes if the person will pay attention to other views and learn. Of course, some of the people I encounter who have these uncomplimentary traits think I am the one who has them.

The clearly insensible behavior I have in mind began in Columbia, S.C., when some presumably well-meaning but unenlightened people on the city council proposed a ban. Did they propose to ban alcohol, tobacco or the Internet, all of which have caused a bit of grief for a few people? Oh no. They decided they should forbid the keeping of venomous snakes as pets. Has this become a big problem in your neighborhood?

A key reason given by those wanting such a law was that a venomous snake can injure or kill its keeper. Another justification was that a reptile that can kill a full-grown rat in minutes could be dangerous if it escaped. Both are indeed possibilities, so let's consider some facts and some principles of living in a community.

First, should society start deciding what dangerous things another person can keep just because other people fear them? If so, we have not been particularly effective when we consider how many people possess guns, fast cars and electrical appliances, all of which injure and kill a lot more owners and other people each year than pet snakes do. So, why should we be deciding what snakes people keep?

Why snakes? Why not single out some other dangerous animals? For example, each year, more than 100 people in the United States are killed by pet horses. Compare this to the one person on average who is killed by a pet snake. And according to the Centers for Disease Control statistics, a staggering 800,000 Americans require medical attention each year for dog bites, of which more than a dozen result in death. I know of no instance in which someone was harmed because someone else's pet venomous snake escaped.

One reason that a pet rattlesnake or cobra is a lot safer than most horses or mean dogs is that a snake stays in a cage and usually has an owner who holds great respect for how dangerous it can be. The problem does not rest with the reality of the level of danger. The problem is one of irrational fear in people who want to keep someone else from doing what they would be afraid to do themselves.

Maybe the council members in favor of a ban were well-meaning, or maybe some like to control other people. Neither reason justifies a ruling that venomous snakes should not be kept by an adult. The fundamental answer of how to get people to appreciate the natural world will come from getting people to appreciate the environment because they are in it, along with all the life that lives there.

And keeping wild animals for pets is an extension of the process. Making laws to limit and control someone's enthusiasm for keeping a particular animal for a pet (barring the obvious ban of keeping a protected species) is not a process we should even contemplate much less institute.

I was recently asked in an e-mail what my stance was on the hobby of keeping snakes and other wild animals as pets. I answered that anyone should be allowed to keep any animal as long as their hobby is not contributing to the depletion of the remaining natural populations in the wild.

Most of today's professional herpetologists and zookeepers kept reptiles, amphibians or other animals for pets as children. If not, they might have done something less interesting with their lives.

I have never kept venomous snakes at home myself, but if someone else wants to, the decision should be their own (along with whoever lives with them). We do not need laws that restrict personal choice simply because the risk-taking doesn't appeal to the lawmakers.